Security Service put pressure on the Rector of the Ukr. Catholic University

Memorandum Regarding theVisit to UCU of a representative of theSecurity Service of Ukraine (SBU) (former KGB)(responsible for contacts with Churches)18 May 2009, office of the rector, 9:50-10:34

At 9:27 in the morning Fr. Borys Gudziak received a call on hisprivate mobile phone from a representative of the Security Service ofUkraine requesting a meeting. The meeting was scheduled for 20minutes later at the rectorate of UCU. This official had had contactswith the UCU rectorate a year ago at the time of the visit to theuniversity of the then President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko. He hadmade a visit to the rectorate in the late afternoon on May 11 withregard to a request of the Ecumenical and Church History Institutesto sign an agreement to use the SBU archives. At that time members ofthe rectorate were away from the office. He had, what Dr. AntoineArjakovsky, director of the Institute of Ecumenical Studies, called a"very good meeting."

Upon arrival on May 18 in a polite manner the agent related thatcertain political parties are planning protests and demonstrationsregarding the controversial (and in some cases inflammatory) policiesof the new Ukrainian authorities. Students are to be engaged in theseprotests. There is a danger that some of these manifestations may bemarred by provocations. He stated that, of course, students areallowed to protest but that they should be warned by the universityadministration that those involved in any illegal activities will beprosecuted. Illegal activities include not only violent acts butalso, for example, pickets blocking access to the work place ofgovernment officials (or any protests that are not sanctioned byauthorities).

After his oral presentation the agent put on the table between us anunfolded one-page letter that was addressed to me. He asked me toread the letter and then acknowledge with a signature my familiaritywith its contents. He stated that after I had read and signed theletter it would be necessary for him to take the letter back. Since Icould see that the document was properly addressed to me as rector (Ialso noticed that it had two signatures giving it a particularlyofficial character) I replied calmly that any letter addressed to mebecomes my property and should stay with me -- at least in copy form.Only under these conditions could I agree to even read the letter(much less sign).

The agent was evidently taken back by my response. It seemed that thesituation for him was without precedent because in my presence usinghis mobile phone he called his (local) superiors to ask forinstructions on how to proceed. The superior refused permission toleave me either the original letter or a copy, saying that the SBUfears I "might publish it in the internet." I questioned this entireprocedure and the need for secrecy and refused to look at the letterand read its contents. The young official was disappointed andsomewhat confused but did not exert additional pressure and did notdispute my argumentation.

Our conversation also had a pastoral moment. I cautioned the agent ofthe fact that the SBU as the former KGB, with many employeesremaining from the Soviet times, has a heavy legacy of breaking andcrippling people physically and morally and that he as a youngmarried person should be careful not to fall into any actions thatwould cause lasting damage to his own identity and shame his childrenand grandchildren. I sought to express this pastorally as a priest.To his credit he both acknowledged the past and declared his desireto serve the needs of Ukrainian citizens. He also asked that Iindicate to him if I feel that he is exercising improper pressure.

Finally, I expressed my and the general population's profounddisappointment that the work of the SBU is so uneven, that securityand police officers live lavishly on low salaries because they areinvolved in corrupt activities, and that the legal rights of citizensand equal application of the law are severely neglected. I gave therecent example of my cousin Teodor Gudziak, the mayor of Vynnyky, whoin February 2010 (three days after the election of the new president)was arrested in a fabricated case of bribery that was set up by anotoriously corrupt political rival and former policemen through theregional and city police. Despite the fact that two weeks before thefabricated affair the mayor, based on a vote of the town council, hadgiven the SBU a video of plainclothes policemen breaking into hisoffice and safe in city hall in the middle of the night and usingtown seals on various documents the SBU took no action. (Theleadership of the Church, specifically Cardinal Lubomyr Husar, fearsthat by manipulated association this case may be used as a devise tocompromise the rector of UCU and the whole institution which has aunique reputation of being free from corruption.) I also related thatI had reliable testimony and audible evidence that my phone is tappedand has been for many months.

The population of Ukraine continues to fear and distrust both statesecurity and police personnel because of the woeful track record oflaw enforcement and because of the diffuse practice of policeintimidation of honest politicians, journalists, and common citizens,and the wonton extortion practiced by security institutions andpolice with respect to middle and small business. I asked the youngagent to convey these concerns to his superiors. I had the impressionthat personally he is open to moral argument but that he also wassimply doing his job. It was clear to me that he was dutifully"following orders."

During our conversation the agent asked me about the imminent (May20-22) General Assembly of the Federation of European CatholicUniversities (FUCE) that will be hosted by UCU in Lviv. Hecharacterized it as an important event (it has received considerablepublicity) and asked about the program and whether it is open to thepublic. It was clear that he would have been interested inparticipating in the proceedings. I said that the main theme,"Humanization of society through the work of Catholic universities,"was announced in a press release, as will be the outcome of thedeliberations. The working sessions of the university rectors,however, are not open to the public. I explained that the 211 membersof the International Federation of Catholic Universities (IFCU) andthe 45 members of FUCE follow closely the development of the onlyCatholic university in the former Soviet Union. They will bemonitoring the welfare of UCU, especially since in Japan in March atthe annual meeting of the Board of Consultors of IFCU I had theopportunity to describe some of our socio-political concerns and thethreats to the freedom of intellectual discourse (imposition ofSoviet historical views, rehabilitation of Stalin and Stalinism, towhom a new monument was unveiled in Zaporizhzhia 5 May 2010) and newcensorship of the press and television, which are incompatible withnormal university life.

Subsequently, as had been arranged at the beginning of the meeting, Icalled in the UCU senior vice rector, Dr. Taras Dobko, to whom theofficial repeated the SBU's concerns.

Besides noting the SBU's solicitude for stability in Ukrainiansociety, there are a few conclusions to be drawn from the encounterand the proposals that were expressed:

1. Signing a document such as the letter that was presented forsignature to me is tantamount to agreeing to cooperate (collaborate)with the SBU. The person signing in effect agrees with the contentsof the letter and their implication. In KGB practice getting asignature on a document that was drafted and kept by the KGB was aprimary method of recruiting secret collaborators.

2. Such methods have no known (to me) precedent in independentUkraine in the experience of UCU and of the Lviv National University,whose longtime rector (and former minister of education, 2008-10),Ivan Vakarchuk, I consulted immediately after the meeting. Thesemethods were well known in Soviet times.

3. The confiscation of the letter after signature makes the letterand signature instruments to be used at the complete discretion ofthe SBU.

4. The possible scenarios for the exploitation of such a documentinclude the following:

a. In case of the arrest of a student, the SBU could confront therectorate and charge that the university was informed of the dangerto students and did not take necessary measures to protect them fromviolence or legal harm. In this case the university administrationcould be charged with both moral and legal responsibility. A chargewith legal ramifications could become an instrument to try to forcethe university to compromise on some important principle (freedom ofexpression, forms of social engagement and critique, even religiouspractice, all of which have precedent in recent history).Furthermore, the authorities could use such a pretext to exert a highdegree of pressure on the university to curb any and all protest bystudents.b. After a hypothetical arrest of a student or students, the studentsand their parents as well as other members of the universitycommunity could be shown the document with which the administrationwas warned and counseled to curb student activities. Since theadministration did not stop the students from the activities thatbecame the pretext for the arrest, parents or others could draw theconclusion that the university does not have adequate concern for thewelfare of its students. This would be a most effective way ofdividing the university community and undermining the university'sreputation among its most important constituents-the students.

5. The apparent genuine surprise of the agent at my refusal to do asrequested could mean that he is not used to such a reaction. He hadexplained to me that he works with clergy on a regular basis. Itcould be assumed that other clergy (who work with youth, students,etc.) have been approached and that they have not refused to signsuch documents.

6. Measures of this nature create apprehension and unease. They aremeant to intimidate university administrations and students. They arepart of a whole pattern of practice that is well known to theUkrainian population. The revival of such practices is a consciousattempt to revive the methods of the Soviet totalitarian past and tore-instill fear in a society that was only beginning to feel itsfreedom.

7. Since only two of the approximately 170 universities of Ukrainehave been voicing there protest regarding recent political andeducational developments and many rectors have beenmarshaled/pressured to express their support regarding the turn ofevents, it is clear that in recent months fear and accommodation arereturning to higher education at a rapid pace. It can be expectedthat UCU will be subject to particular attention and possiblepressure in the coming months. The solidarity of the internationalcommunity, especially the academic world, will be important inhelping UCU maintain a position of principle regarding intellectualand social freedom.

8. Speaking and writing openly about these issues is the mostpeaceful and effective manner of counteracting efforts to secretlycontrol and intimidate students and citizens. As was apparent duringthis incident, state authorities are particularly sensitive aboutpublicity regarding their activity. Information can have apreemptory, corrective, and curing role when it comes to plannedactions to circumscribe civic freedom, democracy, and the basicdignity of human beings.

It should be noted that on 11 May 2010, when Ukrainian students wereorganizing protest activity in Lviv as well as in Kyiv, arepresentative of the office of Ihor Derzhko, the deputy head of theLviv Oblast Administration responsible for humanitarian affairs,called the rectorate and asked for statistics on the number ofstudents participating in the demonstrations. UCU's response was thatthe university does not know how to count in that way.

Please keep UCU and all the students and citizens of Ukraine in yourthoughts and prayers.

Security Service put pressure on the Rector of the Ukr. Catholic University

Memorandum Regarding theVisit to UCU of a representative of theSecurity Service of Ukraine (SBU) (former KGB)(responsible for contacts with Churches)18 May 2009, office of the rector, 9:50-10:34

At 9:27 in the morning Fr. Borys Gudziak received a call on hisprivate mobile phone from a representative of the Security Service ofUkraine requesting a meeting. The meeting was scheduled for 20minutes later at the rectorate of UCU. This official had had contactswith the UCU rectorate a year ago at the time of the visit to theuniversity of the then President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko. He hadmade a visit to the rectorate in the late afternoon on May 11 withregard to a request of the Ecumenical and Church History Institutesto sign an agreement to use the SBU archives. At that time members ofthe rectorate were away from the office. He had, what Dr. AntoineArjakovsky, director of the Institute of Ecumenical Studies, called a"very good meeting."

Upon arrival on May 18 in a polite manner the agent related thatcertain political parties are planning protests and demonstrationsregarding the controversial (and in some cases inflammatory) policiesof the new Ukrainian authorities. Students are to be engaged in theseprotests. There is a danger that some of these manifestations may bemarred by provocations. He stated that, of course, students areallowed to protest but that they should be warned by the universityadministration that those involved in any illegal activities will beprosecuted. Illegal activities include not only violent acts butalso, for example, pickets blocking access to the work place ofgovernment officials (or any protests that are not sanctioned byauthorities).

After his oral presentation the agent put on the table between us anunfolded one-page letter that was addressed to me. He asked me toread the letter and then acknowledge with a signature my familiaritywith its contents. He stated that after I had read and signed theletter it would be necessary for him to take the letter back. Since Icould see that the document was properly addressed to me as rector (Ialso noticed that it had two signatures giving it a particularlyofficial character) I replied calmly that any letter addressed to mebecomes my property and should stay with me -- at least in copy form.Only under these conditions could I agree to even read the letter(much less sign).

The agent was evidently taken back by my response. It seemed that thesituation for him was without precedent because in my presence usinghis mobile phone he called his (local) superiors to ask forinstructions on how to proceed. The superior refused permission toleave me either the original letter or a copy, saying that the SBUfears I "might publish it in the internet." I questioned this entireprocedure and the need for secrecy and refused to look at the letterand read its contents. The young official was disappointed andsomewhat confused but did not exert additional pressure and did notdispute my argumentation.

Our conversation also had a pastoral moment. I cautioned the agent ofthe fact that the SBU as the former KGB, with many employeesremaining from the Soviet times, has a heavy legacy of breaking andcrippling people physically and morally and that he as a youngmarried person should be careful not to fall into any actions thatwould cause lasting damage to his own identity and shame his childrenand grandchildren. I sought to express this pastorally as a priest.To his credit he both acknowledged the past and declared his desireto serve the needs of Ukrainian citizens. He also asked that Iindicate to him if I feel that he is exercising improper pressure.

Finally, I expressed my and the general population's profounddisappointment that the work of the SBU is so uneven, that securityand police officers live lavishly on low salaries because they areinvolved in corrupt activities, and that the legal rights of citizensand equal application of the law are severely neglected. I gave therecent example of my cousin Teodor Gudziak, the mayor of Vynnyky, whoin February 2010 (three days after the election of the new president)was arrested in a fabricated case of bribery that was set up by anotoriously corrupt political rival and former policemen through theregional and city police. Despite the fact that two weeks before thefabricated affair the mayor, based on a vote of the town council, hadgiven the SBU a video of plainclothes policemen breaking into hisoffice and safe in city hall in the middle of the night and usingtown seals on various documents the SBU took no action. (Theleadership of the Church, specifically Cardinal Lubomyr Husar, fearsthat by manipulated association this case may be used as a devise tocompromise the rector of UCU and the whole institution which has aunique reputation of being free from corruption.) I also related thatI had reliable testimony and audible evidence that my phone is tappedand has been for many months.

The population of Ukraine continues to fear and distrust both statesecurity and police personnel because of the woeful track record oflaw enforcement and because of the diffuse practice of policeintimidation of honest politicians, journalists, and common citizens,and the wonton extortion practiced by security institutions andpolice with respect to middle and small business. I asked the youngagent to convey these concerns to his superiors. I had the impressionthat personally he is open to moral argument but that he also wassimply doing his job. It was clear to me that he was dutifully"following orders."

During our conversation the agent asked me about the imminent (May20-22) General Assembly of the Federation of European CatholicUniversities (FUCE) that will be hosted by UCU in Lviv. Hecharacterized it as an important event (it has received considerablepublicity) and asked about the program and whether it is open to thepublic. It was clear that he would have been interested inparticipating in the proceedings. I said that the main theme,"Humanization of society through the work of Catholic universities,"was announced in a press release, as will be the outcome of thedeliberations. The working sessions of the university rectors,however, are not open to the public. I explained that the 211 membersof the International Federation of Catholic Universities (IFCU) andthe 45 members of FUCE follow closely the development of the onlyCatholic university in the former Soviet Union. They will bemonitoring the welfare of UCU, especially since in Japan in March atthe annual meeting of the Board of Consultors of IFCU I had theopportunity to describe some of our socio-political concerns and thethreats to the freedom of intellectual discourse (imposition ofSoviet historical views, rehabilitation of Stalin and Stalinism, towhom a new monument was unveiled in Zaporizhzhia 5 May 2010) and newcensorship of the press and television, which are incompatible withnormal university life.

Subsequently, as had been arranged at the beginning of the meeting, Icalled in the UCU senior vice rector, Dr. Taras Dobko, to whom theofficial repeated the SBU's concerns.

Besides noting the SBU's solicitude for stability in Ukrainiansociety, there are a few conclusions to be drawn from the encounterand the proposals that were expressed:

1. Signing a document such as the letter that was presented forsignature to me is tantamount to agreeing to cooperate (collaborate)with the SBU. The person signing in effect agrees with the contentsof the letter and their implication. In KGB practice getting asignature on a document that was drafted and kept by the KGB was aprimary method of recruiting secret collaborators.

2. Such methods have no known (to me) precedent in independentUkraine in the experience of UCU and of the Lviv National University,whose longtime rector (and former minister of education, 2008-10),Ivan Vakarchuk, I consulted immediately after the meeting. Thesemethods were well known in Soviet times.

3. The confiscation of the letter after signature makes the letterand signature instruments to be used at the complete discretion ofthe SBU.

4. The possible scenarios for the exploitation of such a documentinclude the following:

a. In case of the arrest of a student, the SBU could confront therectorate and charge that the university was informed of the dangerto students and did not take necessary measures to protect them fromviolence or legal harm. In this case the university administrationcould be charged with both moral and legal responsibility. A chargewith legal ramifications could become an instrument to try to forcethe university to compromise on some important principle (freedom ofexpression, forms of social engagement and critique, even religiouspractice, all of which have precedent in recent history).Furthermore, the authorities could use such a pretext to exert a highdegree of pressure on the university to curb any and all protest bystudents.b. After a hypothetical arrest of a student or students, the studentsand their parents as well as other members of the universitycommunity could be shown the document with which the administrationwas warned and counseled to curb student activities. Since theadministration did not stop the students from the activities thatbecame the pretext for the arrest, parents or others could draw theconclusion that the university does not have adequate concern for thewelfare of its students. This would be a most effective way ofdividing the university community and undermining the university'sreputation among its most important constituents-the students.

5. The apparent genuine surprise of the agent at my refusal to do asrequested could mean that he is not used to such a reaction. He hadexplained to me that he works with clergy on a regular basis. Itcould be assumed that other clergy (who work with youth, students,etc.) have been approached and that they have not refused to signsuch documents.

6. Measures of this nature create apprehension and unease. They aremeant to intimidate university administrations and students. They arepart of a whole pattern of practice that is well known to theUkrainian population. The revival of such practices is a consciousattempt to revive the methods of the Soviet totalitarian past and tore-instill fear in a society that was only beginning to feel itsfreedom.

7. Since only two of the approximately 170 universities of Ukrainehave been voicing there protest regarding recent political andeducational developments and many rectors have beenmarshaled/pressured to express their support regarding the turn ofevents, it is clear that in recent months fear and accommodation arereturning to higher education at a rapid pace. It can be expectedthat UCU will be subject to particular attention and possiblepressure in the coming months. The solidarity of the internationalcommunity, especially the academic world, will be important inhelping UCU maintain a position of principle regarding intellectualand social freedom.

8. Speaking and writing openly about these issues is the mostpeaceful and effective manner of counteracting efforts to secretlycontrol and intimidate students and citizens. As was apparent duringthis incident, state authorities are particularly sensitive aboutpublicity regarding their activity. Information can have apreemptory, corrective, and curing role when it comes to plannedactions to circumscribe civic freedom, democracy, and the basicdignity of human beings.

It should be noted that on 11 May 2010, when Ukrainian students wereorganizing protest activity in Lviv as well as in Kyiv, arepresentative of the office of Ihor Derzhko, the deputy head of theLviv Oblast Administration responsible for humanitarian affairs,called the rectorate and asked for statistics on the number ofstudents participating in the demonstrations. UCU's response was thatthe university does not know how to count in that way.

Please keep UCU and all the students and citizens of Ukraine in yourthoughts and prayers.

Security Service put pressure on the Rector of the Ukr. Catholic University

Memorandum Regarding theVisit to UCU of a representative of theSecurity Service of Ukraine (SBU) (former KGB)(responsible for contacts with Churches)18 May 2009, office of the rector, 9:50-10:34

At 9:27 in the morning Fr. Borys Gudziak received a call on hisprivate mobile phone from a representative of the Security Service ofUkraine requesting a meeting. The meeting was scheduled for 20minutes later at the rectorate of UCU. This official had had contactswith the UCU rectorate a year ago at the time of the visit to theuniversity of the then President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko. He hadmade a visit to the rectorate in the late afternoon on May 11 withregard to a request of the Ecumenical and Church History Institutesto sign an agreement to use the SBU archives. At that time members ofthe rectorate were away from the office. He had, what Dr. AntoineArjakovsky, director of the Institute of Ecumenical Studies, called a"very good meeting."

Antoine Arjakovsky came to our parish last Mother's Day. Since I left early to have brunch with my mother, I missed his talk (I did have time to hear him praise the move of the Vatican's Ukrainian cathedral from Lviv to Kiev, but didn't have time to condemn it as warranted). However our Romanians evidently gave him a tongue lashing, chief of which a demeur lady whom I'd never heard a cross word from the years she has been coming.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Antoine Arjakovsky came to our parish last Mother's Day. Since I left early to have brunch with my mother, I missed his talk (I did have time to hear him praise the move of the Vatican's Ukrainian cathedral from Lviv to Kiev, but didn't have time to condemn it as warranted). However our Romanians evidently gave him a tongue lashing, chief of which a demeur lady whom I'd never heard a cross word from the years she has been coming.

Arjakovsky got the same response about 3 years ago when he spoke at the University of Toronto, but from all sides & all academics regardless of Church background.The man has a degree in sociology I believe and knows nothing about theology. He has no respect in the academic world. He was deemed to have sold his soul to Rome for the money and position at a university by the Orthodox present. The Catholics were disgusted and questioned why he had been hired at the Catholic University of Lviv if he is not a theologian.Hasn't he left Ukraine?